Greasing the Slope

Smoking ban opponent Carol Schwartz proposed a tongue-in-cheek alcohol prohibition bill (promptly withdrawn), explaining that ""I never thought I could ban drinking just because I didn't like it, but now I know I can. The impending smoking ban has empowered me."

The Washington Post, in a dreary response, clucks that it's all fun and games till someone loses a lung, managing in a single sentence to reinforce the new, degraded meaning of "public health" (everyone's a member of the public; so all health issues are "public health" issues!) and repeat the infantilizing suggestion that workers "have no choice but to breathe secondhand smoke."

Comments

[Number 6]

I worked for Schwartz when she ran against Barry. Bright woman, but I don't remember her being that fun.

[MP]

The NYC Coalition for a Smoke Free City recently released television ads touting the statistic that second-hand smoke kills 40,000 people each year. They get that statistic from this "fact sheet" produced by the NYC Department of Health. This number is tossed around by numerous organizations (Google this: "second-hand smoke" 40000). I find it disturbing (to be polite) how such unsupportable information (unless somebody can point me to the peer reviewed study that solidly supports this number) can become the bedrock of government policy.

[zach]

it's not the numbers that are important, MP. the important thing is that these people mean well.

[tarran]

Why did she withdraw the bill?

She should have forced them to vote on it. she should make the other council-members document their hypocrisy. 😉

[brooks b]

As an ex-smoker and a non-drinking alcoholic I have always found the obsession with banning smoking and attacking the tobacco companies amusing.Smoking doesn't come near drinking as a problem in this country.The health,crime and societal problems caused by drinking make smoking look like just a smelly bad habit.

[SPD]

I've always found it hypocritical of bar owners who support the smoking ban while peddling an equally if not more dangerous substance with a clear conscience.

[Jerry Aldini]

What she should have proposed was a bill prohibiting the Redskins from playing tackle football - it causes frequent and serious bodily harm to the employees.

We've certainly established that the employee's consent is irrelevant. Furthermore, unlike (say) cops or cabbies, the fact that the Redskins have to "hit" the other team (instead of playing touch) provides no economic or other concrete benefit to society -- just pleasure among the patrons.

I'm basically serious: if the "won't someone please think of the workers" line is horseshit, the rest of the rationale behind the bill quite properly applies to my garage just as easily as a bar.

[mediageek]

It's all fun and games until someone looses a liver.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"Yes, I come to you a changed woman," Schwartz said, her voice oozing sarcasm. "It had just never occurred to me that I could simply choose to ban a legal choice for consenting adults in a private place where the public does not have to go and where workers do not have to work."

She might as well be speaking Greek to these douchebags. Personal privacy and responsibility? Whoawhatawhyahunyanow?

[K1avg]

From the perspective of the big-intruding-government power politicians - that of "protecting the public's safety" (at, of course, the expense of free will), the arguments for banning alcohol are actually greater than those for banning smoking. After all, smoking isn't intoxicating, merely unhealthy. How many patrons leave a bar after a long night of smoking and can't drive home?

So, to "protect the public," wouldn't an alcohol ban make MORE sense than a smoking ban?

Of course, both are absurd violations of a person's individual freedom, and, of course, the obvious parallel between this fight and the War on Drugs is to be expected - marijuana is actually less addictive than tobacco, less intoxicating than alcohol (except in certain, more potent, concoctions ;), and less dangerous than either. Why has it been banned and tobacco and alcohol not?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Before I start my rant let me state that I have never, by habit, smoked tobacco (wink) and personally find it unpleasant to be around.

When I was in school I waited tables. In every restaurant I've worked we always fought over the smoking section. People who opted for non-smoking were usually cheap bastards.. young families (with all the mess they leave behind), retirees, and other douchebags who leave pocket change on the table.

Smokers, on the other hand, tended to be more laid back, ordered alcohol (thus higher tabs), and actually knew how to FUCKING TIP.

So when the Washington Post and other activists claim that there are little to no economic impacts of smoking bans are fucking lying. Period. Someone please back me up here.

[Dynamist]

Rather than attack the anti-tobacco forces on the field of "public health", where the terrain is against us, let's frame it as a terror issue. The more we criminalize and create black markets, it is easier for terrorists to rasie the funds used to kill us. Imagine those terror-funding Afghan poppy fields converted to tobacco, and how much easier it would be to draft accomplices from nicotine addicts over opiate users.

Bin Laden loves the smoking ban!

[zach]

this reminds me of someone's post the other day about how we're supposed to be a constitutional republic, but are slowly slipping into a democracy.

i can't think of a better example than the drug war (and now this)... passing law based on a popularity contest - smoking vs. alcohol, alcohol v. other intoxicating drugs - whilst avoiding the question of whether or not all of this infringes on basic constitutional rights. which apparently are not too popular.

[Nathan]

What she should have proposed was a bill prohibiting the Redskins from playing tackle football - it causes frequent and serious bodily harm to the employees.

I like the snarkiness of the idea, but the only problem is the Redskins have squat all to do with the District. Their practice field is in Virginia and their stadium is in Maryland.

[Phil]

Mr. Nice Guy: I am a lifelong nonsmoker. I tip, minimum 20%, unless the service is abysmal, in which I case I leave 10%. If I eat out on a holiday, I traditionally tip 70-100%.

So that's one data point. Anyone else?

[Russ]

I think she should propose a bill giving everybody complete autonomy of a certain amount of air space around their person (say the arm span in diameter).

If someone doesn't like second-hand smoke in their air space, they can easily ban the invading smoke from their air space by moving their person away from the range of a smoker's air space...Oh wait, thats all they have to do now!

Thats way too easy. Instead, maybe they might could petition the UN to allow them to wear shirts proclaiming their air space to be "No Smoke Zones" and ask their approval to wage war on the offenders for participating in Public Health Environmental Terrorism.

Taxpayers could pay for an system of extremely intricate warnings to alert non-smokers of the Daily Terror Level caused by smokers. Yellow would mean "Elevated", Orange would mean "High", and Red would mean "Aunt Ethyl just stocked up on her semi-weekly carton of unfiltered Camels and needs to tell you a secret"!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Phil:

That's all well and good. I didn't say that ALL nonsmokers were cheap. And you're talking to a fellow non-smoker (tobacco).

Did you ever work as a wait or a bartender?

[Greg]

Rather than attack the anti-tobacco forces on the field of "public health", where the terrain is against us, let's frame it as a terror issue. The more we criminalize and create black markets, it is easier for terrorists to rasie the funds used to kill us. Imagine those terror-funding Afghan poppy fields converted to tobacco, and how much easier it would be to draft accomplices from nicotine addicts over opiate users.

Bin Laden loves the smoking ban!

So Bin Laden is going to grow non-smoke-free bars? Tobacco isn't being prohibited, smoking it in restaurants is.

[zach]

according to the surgeon general, smokers are 67% more likely to compare themselves to sinatra, and thus tip 32% better than their non-smoker counterparts. tips left by smokers feed approximately 10,000 children throughout the U.S.

if you don't believe me, i'll go to word and write up a fact sheet right now. no joke. don't fuck with me.

[zach]

for now, greg. for now.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Stick to the facts, zach 🙂

[WLC]

For now, all Boston is doing is evicting two smokers if their neighbors object to their smoking:

"Last Friday, a jury ruled in favor of the landlord and the eviction. Even though the landlord could have written a nonsmoking clause into the lease and didn't, the jury found that the couple's heavy smoking violated a more general clause banning ''any nuisance; any offensive noise, odor or fumes; or any hazard to health."

"heavy smoking", according to the article, was a pack or so a day.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/06/16/jury_finds_smoking_grounds_for_eviction/?page=1

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Is it safe to assume that many of the nanny-panties who want to outlaw smoking are also for legalizing MJ? If so, what the fuck is up with that?

[Dynamist]

Greg: Slippery slope, hyperbole, etc. What can I do to help you catch the rhythm?

Mr. NG: It doesn't help your economic argument, but non-smokers are generally more boring, too. Probably for the same reasons; it hard to argue politics while wiping spittle from little Reilly's chin.

Russ: Last weekend I was musing about "cigaret vouchers", where every citizen is granted one pack per day. Non-smokers could sell their rights to addicts, or forego the revenue and destroy them.

[Stretch]

Several of my friends currently work at restaurants around Philly, and they all concur that smokers generally tip more. The smoking section is where they want to be. Why this should be so, I have no idea, but it's certainly "common knowledge" amongst waiters. Perhaps an empirical study would disprove this, perhaps not.
-----------------------

The NYC Coalition for a Smoke Free City recently released television ads touting the statistic that second-hand smoke kills 40,000 people each year.

I remember when Bloomberg was hyping the smoking ban in NYC he repeatedly used the SHSmoke mortatility statistics for the entire country (which were also apparenlty bogus) and tried to pass them off as local stats.

[thoreau]

this reminds me of someone's post the other day about how we're supposed to be a constitutional republic, but are slowly slipping into a democracy.

i can't think of a better example than the drug war (and now this)... passing law based on a popularity contest - smoking vs. alcohol, alcohol v. other intoxicating drugs - whilst avoiding the question of whether or not all of this infringes on basic constitutional rights. which apparently are not too popular

zach-

What's funny is that gaius marius will probably agree with you because you used his rhetoric and avoided capital letters.

But if you had talked about individual rights and the rights of bar owners, then he would probably support the smoking ban because we need traditions and institutions to restrain individualism.

What surprises me is that joe hasn't weighed in yet.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Stretch:

Many of the waits and bartenders I served with smoked like chimneys themselves. My theory is that many if not most smokers either currently work or have worked in the service industry.

[thoreau]

My theory is that many if not most smokers either currently work or have worked in the service industry.

True, but most Americans, smokers and non-smokers alike, have at some point worked in the service industry. So I'm not sure how meaningful your statement is. Service industry jobs are plentiful, don't require a lot of education, and are a good way to learn work habits, so most people have worked in one or more such jobs at some point.

I delivered newspapers and worked in a hospital cafeteria in high school. The newspaper job relied on tips, so I usually tip at least 20%.

[zach]

thoreau, i can't tell you how much that means to me, because appeasing gaius is my all-consuming personal goal.

for the record, bar owners should have the right to decide how to run their businesses, and patrons should have a right to decide what kind of environment they want to get wasted in, because individual rights should take precedence over grand notions of "the common good". happy? 😉

filelfians, look for an upcoming dumbed-down letter of protest from yours truly in an upcoming dumbed-down edition of the metro.

[ChicagoTom]

Mr. Nice Guy,

Ill see your anecdote with one of my own. My mother worked in the same restaurant for over 25 years. When the restaurant started enforcing non-smoking sections as well as smoking, they allowed the waitstaff to choose (based on seniority) which stations they wanted. In the smoking room, or the non-smoking. My mom happened to be on vacation when the they got to choose, so she was assinged a room. She got stuck with the non-smoking room. When my mom relayed the story to me her sentiment was : Thank God I was absent that day, because I would have chosen the smoking room. But since then, the non-smoking room has been much more profitable and popular, so I guess I got lucky.

Whats my point?? I think that your implication by anecdote that there really is some kind of economic impact may be a bit overstated.

On a side note, did anyone catch the story of the couple in NY who got evicted because they were smoking in their own apartment??? Now this seems to me an outrageous story

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-smoke22.html

[Jerry Aldini]

Thanks Nathan. I guess some other snarky, less shocking regulation will have to do.

Surely there's other people working in DC who accept occupational risks simply to provide enjoyment to others, and should responsibly be prevented from doing so via the same logic as the smoking ban. Though I've already demonstrated my ignorance of DC, so maybe not.

[ChicagoTom]

Zach,

I agree 100%. Here in Chicago a bar (I think it used to be called Cherry Red -- but has since changed names) went smoke free by choice. They advertise themselves as a smoke free option and its been very successful. I dont get why this needs to be a law. As an ex-smoker, I have no problem with second hand smoke. In fact its as close to having a cig as I can get without actually smoking, and thats great. Why shouldn't I have that option if I want it?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

t-

I'm probably being to vague in my usual meandering.

I perceived a cultural divide between the smoking and non-smoking sections. Non-smokers GENERALLY were self-centered twats who thought nothing of leaving a few coins behind. Smokers generally were more empathetic.. they were less demanding, and more generous. This made my feel that they themselves have experienced what I was going through. Again, this is a very general observation. I had plenty of asshole smoker tables.

[Anvilwyrm]

I don't wanna work in the asshole smoking section. Any way you parse it is bad.

ewwwww.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Yeah, it got really bad when they were blowing rings..

[Bloomberg Radio Techie]

My employer insists on harming his own health (which might be his right but it increases my health care premiums), but even worse harming all his employees with his filthy habit.

You rights end where my health begins, yet I have not heard of any organization championing my co-workers and I from being victimized by my bosses? personal habits and decisions.

This heartless bastard insists that we all work as hard as possible, and for as long as possibly, sometimes even forcing us to work beyond our usual quitting time just to fulfill his personal desire to make more money. Doesn?t he realize he?s heading straight for a stroke or heart attack, and taking the rest of us with him?

There needs to be a law protecting us from ruthless businessmen who care for nothing but their own filthy habits. This guy actually does this to people who used to be kids!

[M1EK]

"So, to "protect the public," wouldn't an alcohol ban make MORE sense than a smoking ban?"

This was essentially repeated like eight times.

Seriously, people. Get your head out of your butt. Smoking directly affects OTHER PEOPLE. You getting drunk, in and of itself, DOES NOT. You getting drunk and then deciding to drive? Sure. You getting drunk and then deciding to swing your fist? Sure. But drinking the liquor does NOTHING TO ME.

If you want to win this battle instead of stroking each other in the comfort of this friendly forum, try not to frame your argument in such an easily refuted form.

[Julian Sanchez]

"Smoking directly affects OTHER PEOPLE"

My friend Brooke from Ban the Ban came up with my favorite pithy response to this claim: "Sure, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. But don't run full speed into my arm and then complain about the impact." In other words, unless someone's forcing you to patronize smoking-friendly bars and restaurants at gunpoint, don't whine about other people "imposing" their smoke on you.

[zach]

M1EK, your refutation refutes itself. just as me drinking liquor doesn't affect you until i take a swing, me smoking a cigarette doesn't affect you unless you're in the room with me. you're free to spend your time at a place where you won't have to worry about secondhand smoke; just as you're free to spend your time in a place where you won't have to worry about someone getting drunk and taking a swing at you.

these options are already available to you, without legislation. the effect of the smoking ban is to remove my option of going to a bar where i can smoke. so it's fair to compare it to fictional laws with the purpose of removing my option to go somewhere where i can drink, or box, or listen to loud music.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

And this is assuming that second-hand smoke poses any significant danger. I myself feel ill around second-hand smoke.. but c'mon. We are constantly exposed to air-borne contaminants. Is shs in itself a real threat? Can that be objectively proven?

[M1EK]

The reasonable Julian from past threads obviously ran into the fist of his friend Brooke.

BEFORE any bans took place here, it was nigh-impossible to eat dinner without breathing smoke. The magic of the market somehow failed to provide ANY reasonable non-smoking alternatives outside of fast food. Rather than resorting back to eighth-grade libertarianism as New Julian is doing, can't we analyze WHY it 'failed' and propose better solutions, like that More Reasonable Julian did in That Other Thread?

[joe]

Also, in the horrific atrocity of the couple being evicted in Boston, the neighbors were complaining because the smokers' fumes were enterring their units (which they own) and the common areas of the building (which they also own).

First one to tell me they're free to sell their home and find another gets a wedgie.

[MP]

You're right, M1EK. Government exists to enforce the lifestyle preferences of the majority. How silly of me to believe in such concepts as individual responsibility and property rights. I feel so ashamed...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

joe:

Surely, if you ever lived in close proximity with strangers, you would agree that people get on each others' fucking nerves, and sometimes things get really petty. I one time had a neighbor call the cops during the day because the kids visiting our unit were playing too loudly.

If I had someone next to me stinking my place with smoke, it would piss me off. But what is the difference between that and someone who cooks with heavy spices that smell like dog shit? Many of us apartment dwellers have been down that road..

[Rhywun]

joe,

I won't tell you they're free to sell their home (especially since we're talking about RENTERS), but I will point out that the fact that the unit had HOLES in it leading to other parts of the building did not seem to stop the jury from removing their right to smoke in their own home.

And after spending two pages in that article complaining about the stink, we get this:

Brooks said he hopes last week's decision will become a useful tool for protecting the health of other tenants.

Yes, it's always been about health. Uh huh.

[WLC]

Joe,

With respect, I don't like the smell of saurkraut (smells like rotting garbage), which my neighbor cooks, occasionally. I pay rent in my unit too; I'm not a four-year old, I get over it. I could (perhaps) have her ass tossed out, but I'd be a rotten excuse for a human being, IMHO.

Wm Cook

[zach]

joe,

they're free to move out, just like they were free to move into a non-smoking building, without holes in the walls.

[joe]

zach, 0^0. There you go.

In haling the scent of saurkraut and spices isn't linked to health problems. Also, you generally can't smell the saurkraut on your clothing and upholstery days later - for the reason that smoking actually puts a lot more physical material in the air than cooking (unless you cook like me), which can fall on and adhere to your stuff. Cigarette smoke is more intrusive than the scent of cooking for those reasons.

[joe]

Yeah, I know, now we get into "there's evidence that second hand smoke/global warming/high lead levels in children's blood/whatever is harmful. None. It's all a conspiracy. Yadda yadda yadda."

Thanks anyway.

[James]

The Lafayette, LA city council passed a smoking ban yesterday, homes, bars and casinos excluded. My biggest gripe would be the requirement that businesses post a NO SMOKING sign. I'm considering heading over there with signs that read: "NO SMOKING, Thanks to the freedom hating councilmen listed below:....". I wish someone would challenge these infringements of personal property rights in court.

[6Gun]

The NYC Coalition for a Smoke Free City recently released television ads touting the statistic that second-hand smoke kills 40,000 people each year.

Not surprising; the fact bogus numbers constitute govt policy.

What is surprising -- at least to my once-naive self-sufficiency and dreams of responsible constitutionalism -- is that whoever the hell the NCSFC is, it could, and in many places probably is, government itself.

Why isn't government lobbying itself illegal?

Joining that problem back to the bogus statistics, it's time once again for the sexist and ruinious Violence Against Women Act, Little Joe Biden's $1B boondoggle, to come up for renewal. Doesn't sound all that bad, does it? The Federal Government protecting the 95% of women who will be exposed to domestic violence?

Except that every stat on the entire planet utterly refutes the bill/program's entire reason to exist. And that this time it really is government lobbying itself in order to keep the pork coming and NOW's discrimination flowing.

When I say be very afraid I do not do so rhetorically.

[zach]

Yeah, I know, now we get into "there's evidence that second hand smoke/global warming/high lead levels in children's blood/whatever is harmful. None. It's all a conspiracy. Yadda yadda yadda."

i was just gonna say, "not good enough". we're talking about what someone does in their own home here, albeit a rented home with holes in the walls.

[jc]

smoking actually puts a lot more physical material in the air

we should ban automobiles for the same reason.

[WLC]

Joe,

For the record, I wasn't questioning your humanity--just the idiots in Boston. Perhaps someday I'll be affluent enough to care about stupid shit; or delegate my ability to assume risks to someone "wiser". *shrugs*

I only questioned your cavalier take on it.

0^0 ?

[thoreau]

joe-

I think you present a genuinely problematic situation. We can all come up with our ideal libertarian answers, but there's no denying that in practice you present a situation where rights collide (the right to smoke in your own place vs. the right to keep smoke out of your place).

My attempt at an ideal libertarian answer: If there was some sort of agreement in place when the people in question moved into the building, then handle it according to that. To libertarians that is ideal, and even to the rest of the world it's still pragmatic. I mean, there's a conflict here, it's gonna have to be addressed somehow, might as well be with whatever the standing agreement was.

If the issue of smoking was not addressed in some sort of contract? Then it's genuinely problematic.

This isn't math, not every question can be answered rigorously by invoking axioms. Doesn't justify smoking bans in bars, but I can acknowledge the existence of hard cases without completely surrendering to the regulatory state.

[ed]

If Tip O'Neill were still in town, Schwartz would be crab food.

[MP]

thoreau,

There was a lease in place. The court interpreted a clause in the lease such that the smoking tenents were in violation of the lease, and thus were evictable. (NOTE: I have no opinion on the decision, since I didn't review the lease or the decision. However, it appears to be a properly adjucated matter of contract law, which no libertarian should have a prima facie issue with.)

[thoreau]

Thanks for the info, MP.

[drf]

WLC:

western illinois U?

awesome. shout out to you all out there!

greetings from chicago.

(p.s. arguing about something that is toxic in lower doses: cigarette smoke vs something that is not: sauerkraut, might be in the spirit of the argument most of us believe, but is too much of a straw man to be taken seriously - i hate smoke, but don't believe in the second hand = cancer for everyone "argument", either. i just find that the absurd smells argument or "everything is toxic, save the dose" way of attacking the health-fascists is no way of beating them)

thoreau: ahhh, spoken like a man who is used to the deterministic variables in the world of science. welcome to the stochastic world of social science. grin.

(just ARCH or GARCH or ARIMA it. it'll be fine)

[joe]

zach,

Do my neighbors have no redress if I, in my own home, play my stereo at volume at at 2AM?

It doesn't matter where a nuisance originates, but where its effects are felt.

[zach]

good point thoreau, never thought about it that way.

[Chrisd]

M1KE said: "BEFORE any bans took place here, it was nigh-impossible to eat dinner without breathing smoke. The magic of the market somehow failed to provide ANY reasonable non-smoking alternatives outside of fast food. Rather than resorting back to eighth-grade libertarianism as New Julian is doing, can't we analyze WHY it 'failed' and propose better solutions, like that More Reasonable Julian did in That Other Thread?"

I can't speak to where you live, but in Portland, OR - BEFORE any bans took place, there were already a number of non-smoking venues. Amongst my non-smoking friends, they were quite popular. So the market did, in fact, provide a solution. Perhaps the reason why the market has not provided a solution for where you live is because there is little demand for it.

[joe]

jc,

Banning automobiles would have serious public policy harms. Also, the same benefit (or very nearly so) can be achieved through regulations short of a ban. Finally, no one's talking about banning cigarettes, just (in this case) allowing renters and rental property owners to enforce their right to the quiet enjoyment of their property.

WLC, 0^0 is the best wedgie icon I could come up with.

[joe]

thoreau,

There was no regulatory state involved in the case. There was a landlord who told some tenants to beat it because their actions were interfering with other tenants' rights.

What made the case less than cut and dried was that the lease specifically allowed the tenants to smoke in their unit. However, everyone else's lease gave the right, either in the lease itself or in the common-law rights contained in a lease contract, the right to the quiet enjoyment of their property, which the smoke from the smokers' unit was interfering with.

So it was not just a clash of general rights - the general "liberty interest" to be left alone vs. the general right to enjoy the use of one's property - but a clash of specific tenants' rights.

[zach]

joe, certainly they do, since every lease prohibits disturbing neighbors with loud music at 2AM. but if i moved into a building that allowed playing music loudly at all hours of the morning, i wouldn't then complain because i heard loud music at all hours of the morning.

this case obviously wasn't as cut-and-dry, since the crappiness of the building involved was partially at fault; and thoreau's right, no one can really complain if the terms of the lease were satisfied. but on the surface it seems wrong to be kicked out of your apartment for smoking in it, if the lease is supposed to allow that.

[WLC]

drf,

Hey! (Go Leathernecks!)

Point taken. I've been cleaning tape off documents all afternoon (I work in the archives)--maybe the Acetone is getting to me 🙂

WLC

[drf]

🙂
at least you're indoors - isn't it really hot out there? we're at least cooled off by the lake!
cheers,
drf

[thoreau]

thoreau: ahhh, spoken like a man who is used to the deterministic variables in the world of science. welcome to the stochastic world of social science. grin.

What do you mean? I'm well accustomed to stochastic phenomena. Photons undergo random walks in complicated media. And I was explaining to my students last week that without randomness, black and white photographs would be just that (no gray).

(The reason that gray depends on randomness is this: We all know that if part of a scene is bright enough then all of the film grains will develop, and if part of a scene is dim enough then none of the grains will develop. But in the gray regions, only some of the grains will develop. Two grains sitting right next to eachother can receive essentially the same amount of light, but one will develop and the other won't. There's randomness in the process of light absorption as well as the chemical reactions that develop the film.)

[drf]

cool...

🙂

(as mentioned, good luck with the move. you'll be great in your new job. all the best to You and Yours)

[thoreau]

Thanks, drf!

[one with many afflictions]

Your peanuts and cologne interfere with my quiet enjoyment of this blog, and also cause me serious medical complications due to my allergies and asthma. Please evict yourselves at once.

[curious]

I'm not a lawyer, but what I don't get is this: Why hasn't a coalition of bar owners gotten this to a high enough court to get smoking bans thrown out as an obvious violation of constitutional rights based on discredited junk science promulgated by a combination of government agencies exceeding their brief (e.g., the EPA) and "non-profits" (RWJF, ALS, ACS, etc.) cooking evidence to support a pre-conceived conclusion? And maybe a DC smoking ban would provide the platform for that, since it would go to the federal court system quickly and might even get before somebody new like Rogers Brown?

[Stupendousman!]

Tobacco isn't some magical substance. The smoke from it diffuses in the air. The ability to smell it doesn't mean you're being exposed to a dangerous amount, in the apartment lawsuit case it most likely is similar to food odor. Seeing that it usually takes regular smokers decades to develop serious health effects the second-hand smoke health concerns seem a bit hysterical. For dangerous airborne chemicals and particulates look to the gas station, fireplace and construction site.

As an nonsmoking ex-waiter/bartender I'd have to say it wasn't the smoking that bothered me it was the finger licking. Human saliva, humming with viruses and bacteria, spread over every condiment bottle and salt shaker. I was sick every other week.

[joe]

zach,

Leases are also supposed to allow the use of healthful spaces, and forbid the intrusion into your unit by other people and their emanations.

So we ended up with a judgement call, a question of whether other people's smoke going into your unit was a reasonable condition of living in multifamily housing, or whether it went beyond that. I'm sure you'd agree that the smokers should be kicked out for running a deisel generator or motorcycle in their unit, and filling their neighbors units with exhaust. So the question becomes, is second hand smoke more like the smell of someone's cooking, or is it more like the exhaust from a machine? The judge decided the latter, based on the intrusiveness of the smoke.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

What 6Gun said, especially regarding VAWA and bogus stats as a basis for gov't policies.

The Restaraunt Assoc. in the Peoples' Republic of Colorado came out against city and county-wide bans, since those bans would still allow people fairly easy freedom of choice; the Assoc. was concerned that that freedom might harm the more regulated restaurants and bars, and so they support a state-wide ban.

Does anyone know what happened with the smoking ban in France a few years ago? Or heard about "private clubs" as a way around the "public accomodation" fiction?

[joe]

"Why hasn't a coalition of bar owners gotten this to a high enough court to get smoking bans thrown out as an obvious violation of constitutional rights based on discredited junk science promulgated by a combination of government agencies exceeding their brief (e.g., the EPA) and "non-profits" (RWJF, ALS, ACS, etc.) cooking evidence to support a pre-conceived conclusion?"

Might I suggest a possible reason why the enormously-powerful restaurant lobby hasn't filed such suits?

How about, because they know that the claim "discredited junk science promulgated by a combination of government agencies exceeding their brief (e.g., the EPA) and "non-profits" (RWJF, ALS, ACS, etc.) cooking evidence to support a pre-conceived conclusion" is completely unsupported by the facts, that they would lose badly, and that filing such a suit would go nowhere?

This assumption that the science HAS to be junk, because the policies based on it offend your political preferences, isn't going to stand up in a court of law.

[WLC]

drf,

Nothing better than a breeze off Lake Michigan when you're at a Cubs game. 🙂

It's hot (90s), very humid (probably 80% or more), and not a leaf is stirring here. Tonight, I will break down and turn on the AC!

WLC

[R C Dean]

Why hasn't a coalition of bar owners gotten this to a high enough court to get smoking bans thrown out as an obvious violation of constitutional rights

There's no such thing anymore as a statute being thrown out just because it is crossways with the Constitution. See, eg., McCain-Feingold and medical marijuana.

based on discredited junk science

Passing legislation on this basis is a sacred prerogative of legislatures everywhere. No statute has ever been struck down because it was based on junk science, as far as I know.

promulgated by a combination of government agencies exceeding their brief (e.g., the EPA)

Unicorns have been sighted on Capitol Hill more often that agency action has been overturned as ultra vires.

Do you think you live in a Constitutional Republic or something? Geez. Get a clue.

[Bobster]

Suppose I open a restaurant called "Loud Rock and Roll" where I keep the music at 100 dB at all times. Could people who want to eat in silence get the music banned? It can be shown that the loud music is bad on hearing. How dare I 'force' these 'victims' to be deafened while eating in my restaurant! The unfortunate waiter/waitress will be 'forced' into being deaf at an early age. I say 'yes', in America today the "Loud Rock and Roll" restaurant would not be allowed to be loud.

[MP]

owma,

You're treading too close to reality.

[joe]

"No statute has ever been struck down because it was based on junk science, as far as I know."

Numerous laws have been struck down based on scientific evidence that the solution does not reasonably relate to the government goal being pursued. If there was evidence that banning smoking would not contribute to the legitimate public health concern of reducing illness among those exposed to second-hand smoke, the ordinances would be ripe for challenge on those grounds.

[Russell]

Perhaps we shoild appeal to the Founders :it is self-evident that all benzopyrans are created equal, and the insult to the commons presented by turning megatons of Diesel fuel into smoke for public inhakation in public spaces in DC literally outweighs tobacco emissions there by ten thousand to one.

The measures restaurants take to prevent lung cancer by ventilating their char-broiling areas are an uncontroversial success.

Ditto suburban crematoria , depite their emitting amounts of toothsome mercury that put coal mining to shame , so perhaps it is time to deal with the paranoid endency among the neoprohibitionists the old fashionsd way, by a City ordinance declaring them common scolds.

[zach]

joe,

If there was evidence that banning smoking would not contribute to the legitimate public health concern of reducing illness among those exposed to second-hand smoke, the ordinances would be ripe for challenge on those grounds.

well there is, and they are. i wouldn't call any figure suggesting the harm of secondhand smoke "junk science", but the sad truth of the matter is that the conventional wisdom "secondhand smoke is incredibly bad for you" exists absent conclusive evidence. a lot of these figures are based on studies that mainly have to do with spouses and family members of smokers, many of whom are former smokers themselves. be that as it may, the conventional wisdom remains what it is, to the point were no one wants to challenge this legislation on those grounds. politicians don't want to look stupid by challenging "common knowledge".

I'm sure you'd agree that the smokers should be kicked out for running a deisel generator or motorcycle in their unit, and filling their neighbors units with exhaust.

leaving alone how much less harmful smoking is than diesel exhaust, there are no specifically "diesel exhaust allowed" and "no diesel exhaust" apartments. if there were, someone who moved into a "disel exhaust allowed" apartment should expect to be allowed to run their diesel engines without penalty.

[dhex]

"If there was evidence that banning smoking would not contribute to the legitimate public health concern of reducing illness among those exposed to second-hand smoke, the ordinances would be ripe for challenge on those grounds."

oh, joe...how i wish to live in your world. but raich, etc...

[6Gun]

Why hasn't a coalition of bar owners gotten this to a high enough court to get smoking bans thrown out as an obvious violation of constitutional rights

Probably the same reason another hundred thousand issues linger and linger: Government writes this crap faster than we can erase it. The social arm of government, thanks to our apathy, is in absolutely everything; smoking bans are just one of the more visible and easily debated points of law.

Why don't we simply (again) sever the government from the private sector in all things social? Seems to me that everything falls into place then. If I, a landlord or hotel owner or restuarantuer, want smoking banned, so be it. It's my damn property.

If, on the other hand, govt wants to do precisely the same thing, that should be -- and to your question, probably already is -- constitutionally prohibited.

Do my neighbors have no redress if I, in my own home, play my stereo at volume at at 2AM?

Ah, no, ideally they should not, simply because the cure is worse than the disease. Low-grade arguments based on subjective outcomes the kind of which populate even this board make me nauseous.

[6Gun]

There's no such thing anymore as a statute being thrown out just because it is crossways with the Constitution. See, eg., McCain-Feingold and medical marijuana.

THAT, and not if 2nd hand smoke kills, is the issue.

[6Gun]

Numerous laws have been struck down based on scientific evidence that the solution does not reasonably relate to the government goal being pursued.

"The government goal" he said, aloud.

Which is, of course, as much or more the problem as the reverse, joe.

[Xavier]

You guys are missing the most disturbing part of the article:

That should be sufficient time to produce legislation that achieves the proponents' major objectives while taking into account some of Mrs. Schwartz's ideas, such as directing funds collected through penalties for smoking violations to anti-smoking and health education programs.

The WP seems to think collecting money to fund anti-smoking publicity campaigns is a compromise that would appease people who care about the freedom of bar owners to allow smoking in their establishment. How the hell did they come up with that idea?

[grylliade]

Yeah, I know, now we get into "there's evidence that second hand smoke/global warming/high lead levels in children's blood/whatever is harmful. None. It's all a conspiracy. Yadda yadda yadda."

joe -

I think that you can agree that secondhand smoke is harmful, but disagree that its effects are as large in the general populace as are shown in studies. I think that it's self-evident that secondhand smoke is harmful; I don't think that it's self-evident that it's harmful enough that a smoking ban is called for in public places. I actually had someone tell me to be careful smoking a pipe, because even though I didn't inhale, the secondhand smoke (from my own pipe) was just as dangerous. If secondhand smoke is so damn dangerous, why is it that the lung cancer rates of cigar and pipe smokers who don't inhale so low compared to those of those who do? The answer is that it is dangerous, but not extremely so. And public policy solutions to the "problem" are wrong, and based on inflated risks.

The same goes for global warming (though that's not what we're on right now). You can agree that the warming is happening, while disagreeing about the extent, the causes, or the solutions proposed.

[6Gun]

grylliade,

"Second hand smoke." "Global warming." "Domestic violence." "No Child Left Behind."

Welfare. Department of Health and Human Resources. Food stamps. Medicare/Medicaid. Aid to Dependent Children (now there's irony.)

I challenge anyone to demonstrate that any of these -- and another few thousand like them -- are 1/10th the "social need" or a legitimate or practical "governmental goal" as they are sheer statist marketing.

[Jason Sonenshein]

If you want to win this battle instead of stroking each other in the comfort of this friendly forum, try not to frame your argument in such an easily refuted form.

OK, how's this? I have visited cities (New York, Columbus, etc.) where smoking is banned in privately owned, indoor businesses. In such cities, smokers go outside to public sidewalks to smoke, making it impossible to walk down the sidewalk without walking through clouds of second-hand smoke. Here in Cleveland, we do not yet have a smoking ban. Here, smokers are allowed to keep their smoke contained in privately owned, indoor businesses. For the moment, we non-smokers can enjoy nearly smoke-free public sidewalks in Cleveland, because Cleveland does not yet have a smoking ban.

[mk]

Just this week some friends and I went to Les Halles in DC and smoked cigars, ate and spent an awful lot of money (and yes we tipped WELL). I have already gone out of my way to smoke in restaurants in DC simply because I know that I may not have the option in the future. I'm not rich and I only occasionally smoke cigars, but FWIW I will not frequent restaurants in DC if they allow this nonsense to go through. There are plenty of good restaurants in VA.

[zach]

there should be a public ordnance against drinking pilsner at 1:30 AM whilst reading reason hit & run. god knows it's detrimental to my mental health.

[Rhywun]

Speaking of cigars, does anybody understand the rationale behind the fact that "cigar bars" are still legal in NYC whilst I cannot smoke a cigarette in any normal bar? I mean, don't they "care" about the health of cigar smokers?

[rvman]

>BEFORE any bans took place here, it was
>nigh-impossible to eat dinner without breathing
>smoke.

M1EK: No no-smoking restaurants without the bans in your area? Unusual. Please follow the following link to find your solution:

http://www.allrecipes.com/